Encountered this recently, the system doesn't really matter because it's a general principle. It amazes me in the 21st century, with almost half a century of game design and play experience that people still write rulebooks this way.
What I mean is they have a chargen process which begins with "come up with a character concept". As in dream about the sort of character you want to play.
Then follow with a random method of assigning attributes or other game-critical character stats. Meaning whatever you came up with initially will either have to be drastically skewed or even binned entirely depending on the fall of the dice.
Note this is not a rant about random chargen - but about doing futile things in the wrong order. If your game has randomness significant enough to essentially determine the things that matter about the character, roll stats first, then get to rationalising what they mean as a character concept.
Otherwise you're just encouraging pointless expenditure of time and effort for no good reason.
I agree that randomized attribute rolling, if included, should be the first step in character generation to give you an idea of what potential aptitudes your character might have. You can always choose to play an inept character whose attributes are ill-suited to the concept you came up with but it shouldn't be something that you're encouraged let alone "forced" to do by the order of chargen operations. Of course, I say that as someone who started gaming in the 90s and who has a strong preference for point buy systems instead so *insert bias here*.
Quote from: RNGm on April 27, 2025, 07:11:38 AMI agree that randomized attribute rolling, if included, should be the first step in character generation to give you an idea of what potential aptitudes your character might have. You can always choose to play an inept character whose attributes are ill-suited to the concept you came up with but it shouldn't be something that you're encouraged let alone "forced" to do by the order of chargen operations. Of course, I say that as someone who started gaming in the 90s and who has a strong preference for point buy systems instead so *insert bias here*.
I have similar preferences (also started in the 90s), but yes, the main thrust is about turning chargen into make-work, because the sequence of events is wrong.
This book in particular did then feature two alternative (but "optional") attribute generation methods, one allowing you to assign your random stats to taste (default is random in order), and a point buy method.
Though they commit the other sin that often happens when there's a non-random option: making it significantly worse than the random one. Is it really so hard for some game designers to let players create the characters they want to play?
I'm not sure I've ever seen a rulebook really talk about "here's the random stuff you're born with, now imagine what sort of adventurer you'd be that." But that's how everyone I gamed with did it back in the 70's and 80's.
It would certainly be interesting to see that concept laid out explicitly in a game.
My ideal is some back and forth of a mix--which naturally is somewhat more difficult to convey to the player. Limits breed creativity. Players do often come to the game with an idea of what they want to play. The conflict between those two drives is fertile ground when it can be successfully navigated.
That is why I have random character generation but mixed with at least one moderately high score, allowing the player to swap any two scores after the random generation, and built in limited cut concrete options to improve ability scores as the character gets experience. So the player can come to the game with a general concept, roll ability scores, then mix the general concept with those scores to flesh out the concept with the creativity that the limits cause.
I also find that this takes out the worst aspects of point buy, such as dragging the whole process out trying to eke out every little edge--real or sometimes imagined.
The key is the random stuff does not effectively determine your character. Sure, you might have rearranged order of priority on some secondary attributes, and those random skills you got from your race/culture might not be exactly what you had in mind, and the free starting equipment you were granted by your family/tribe/whatever might not fit exactly where you are going. However, you get that limited but critical control over the arrangement of your attributes, you get some other skill picks that are wide open and more that are largely under your control, and finding the money/equipment to get where you want to be is a good opening motivation.
It's been interesting testing, because more often than not, the creativity spurred by those initial limits gets the player to take the character somewhere they did not envision, but now want to go. And when it doesn't, those vestigial bits become the part that makes the character well-rounded. "Well, my folks assumed I'd stay in the maritime merchants guild like they did, but it never appealed. That's why I know my way around a ship even though it has nothing to do with who I am now."
I agree. I see there being (at minimum) two paths:
Roll a character and see what the dice give you and then craft something from that. The rules provide the ingredients and the dice provide measures.
Build a character using the ingredients and measures provided by the rules.
Mixing the two is pretty likely to result in a bad result.
You mean like shoehorning Method V into Unearthed Arcana...at that point you might as well just assign attributes instead of rolling. My guess is that the barbarian was almost unplayable without 18s in CON and DEX, but that's just a guess.
The important thing is being able to die in chargen! :-)
Quote from: Tod13 on April 27, 2025, 10:59:36 AMThe important thing is being able to die in chargen! :-)
It's not dying... it's just regenerative chargen like Doctor Who because you just go into the next one! :)
Quote from: RNGm on April 27, 2025, 11:47:17 AMQuote from: Tod13 on April 27, 2025, 10:59:36 AMThe important thing is being able to die in chargen! :-)
It's not dying... it's just regenerative chargen like Doctor Who because you just go into the next one! :)
And now I want rules about being able to inherit from the previous chargen attempt... LOL
Quote from: Zalman on April 27, 2025, 07:27:11 AMI'm not sure I've ever seen a rulebook really talk about "here's the random stuff you're born with, now imagine what sort of adventurer you'd be that." But that's how everyone I gamed with did it back in the 70's and 80's.
It would certainly be interesting to see that concept laid out explicitly in a game.
I kind of agree. It doesn't necessarily need to be "birth" attributes, but things you didn't necessarily have a say about learning or developing. A few random traits make for a much more interesting start than rolling out your stats.
The way I tend to run character creation is to let players pull 3-4 random specs from a hat, then let them discard one. I don't require players to meet the chargen requirements for these random specs (they usually aren't high enough level for it to matter) but if their character meets the character creation requirements for at least 2 of the random specs they drew and kept, they get to fish around on the table for random features other players discarded.
You'd think this is a Session Zero only mechanic, but that isn't exactly true. If someone needs to reroll or if a new player joins, you can reuse the leftovers bucket of discarded abilities for both halves of the process.
I tend to really like this process. It's a bit time consuming and finicky, and usually breaks RAW character advancement, but it also lets me encourage players to pick up certain skills or features I know will probably be useful in the campaign.
Quote from: Tod13 on April 27, 2025, 12:34:33 PMAnd now I want rules about being able to inherit from the previous chargen attempt... LOL
Well, you could try to convert the rule from the Astral Elf for 5e into whatever system you play... :) I'd call it the Dax rule to borrow from another classic franchise (also ruined).
QuoteWhenever you finish this trance, you gain proficiency in one skill of your choice and with one weapon or tool of your choice, selected from the Player's Handbook. You magically acquire these proficiencies by drawing them from shared elven memory and the experiences of entities on the Astral Plane, and you retain them until you finish your next long rest.
I've been looking at various game systems (as in literally dozens as I'm taking notes, lol!) in an effort to broaden my horizons regarding the first two decades of fantasy gaming and its more modern OSR offshoots and homages.
@Kiero. I was looking today at the 5e and B/X hybrid Into the Unknown and it actually had dual order character generation as we've been discussing here. In the "discover your character" method you roll randomly for attributes first whereas with the "choose your character" method you pick from a set of standard arrays last instead. I think that's a good compromise for both ends of the preference spectrum.
Quote from: Kiero on April 27, 2025, 07:17:29 AMThis book in particular did then feature two alternative (but "optional") attribute generation methods, one allowing you to assign your random stats to taste (default is random in order), and a point buy method.
This is your actual answer. If the game has randomization as the "default" but has an order that clearly dictates some manner of non-random (either "arrange random stats to taste" or "point buy" or "matrix") as "optional", then rest assured 98% of the testing was with the "optional" builds.
Frankly, it's generally better to tell the players to make their stats then pick class or skills or whatever. Since all the randomness in play has already happened (there may be later rolls for skills or bonus stats or money), the player will naturally go back and forth as needed, depending on the character generation method.
For a solid combination of this, check out
Stars Without Number and
Worlds Without Number, which want you to roll, then let you stamp a 14 anywhere if you do, but have a matrix build option instead, and then you start making other decisions- some of which might involve dice. It's a very good order and extremely well written.
QuoteThough they commit the other sin that often happens when there's a non-random option: making it significantly worse than the random one. Is it really so hard for some game designers to let players create the characters they want to play?
That's not a sin nor error. It's a
great virtue. There's three great reasons to do this.
1- Random is fundamentally less able to get you to something you want that point-build or matrix. There must be compensation for this, in the form of a higher average. Not just a higher envelope, but a higher average.
2- Because even a pretty generous method like AD&D 1e's default method (and 5e's default method) of 4d6, drop lowest, six times, arrange to taste, will still often enough produce something not great at all, having a higher average actually makes this way less likely. The average must be higher for this reason too.
3- People who are willing to entrust their fate to the dice deserve a chance to roll an amazing score. Cowards who want point buy do not. I say all this as someone who hates rolling for stats and always pushes point buy.
I've never seen a game with matrix or point buy that gives crappy characters. I'll freely admit my field of experience may be less than yours (or everyone in the thread for that matter) on this topic, but making worse characters than the average roll is 100% how you have to design point buy or matrix.
It depends what the rolling really does.
Notably, rolling the AD&D Method I (best 3 of 4d6 and arrange as desired) barely told you anything about the character in most cases. At most, it told you if you could qualify for one of the special classes like Ranger. It's still better to roll first, but the roll generally didn't tell you much and didn't get in the way of most concepts - so it isn't a big deal.
When doing random-roll, I prefer to actually go whole hog and do stats in order as well as random race, sex, and a few background traits. I'd generally roll up three to five complete characters and pick one that I like. The others I'd have as backup characters or donate as NPCs. However, that's a rare preference in my experience - even back in the 1980s.
Quote from: Venka on April 27, 2025, 07:39:29 PMThis is your actual answer. If the game has randomization as the "default" but has an order that clearly dictates some manner of non-random (either "arrange random stats to taste" or "point buy" or "matrix") as "optional", then rest assured 98% of the testing was with the "optional" builds.
Frankly, it's generally better to tell the players to make their stats then pick class or skills or whatever. Since all the randomness in play has already happened (there may be later rolls for skills or bonus stats or money), the player will naturally go back and forth as needed, depending on the character generation method.
For a solid combination of this, check out Stars Without Number and Worlds Without Number, which want you to roll, then let you stamp a 14 anywhere if you do, but have a matrix build option instead, and then you start making other decisions- some of which might involve dice. It's a very good order and extremely well written.
That doesn't cut it for me. You can't instruct people in the main rulebook to do something that doesn't make sense, then excuse it because in the options, they suggest ways that it might be more sensible.
In this instance it wasn't just stats, there's entire origins and careers stuff which is randomly generated as well, so any concept you come up with could be rapidly rendered completely irrelevant by what you roll afterwards.
Coming up with a concept, then rolling all that stuff is completely illogical. You should be rolling all that stuf, then afterwards trying to make sense of it with a concept that ties it all together.
Quote from: Venka on April 27, 2025, 07:39:29 PMThat's not a sin nor error. It's a great virtue. There's three great reasons to do this.
1- Random is fundamentally less able to get you to something you want that point-build or matrix. There must be compensation for this, in the form of a higher average. Not just a higher envelope, but a higher average.
2- Because even a pretty generous method like AD&D 1e's default method (and 5e's default method) of 4d6, drop lowest, six times, arrange to taste, will still often enough produce something not great at all, having a higher average actually makes this way less likely. The average must be higher for this reason too.
3- People who are willing to entrust their fate to the dice deserve a chance to roll an amazing score. Cowards who want point buy do not. I say all this as someone who hates rolling for stats and always pushes point buy.
I've never seen a game with matrix or point buy that gives crappy characters. I'll freely admit my field of experience may be less than yours (or everyone in the thread for that matter) on this topic, but making worse characters than the average roll is 100% how you have to design point buy or matrix.
I don't think that's a virtue at all. Especially when paired with signature characters from the source material who are better than anything you could generate with the non-random options. Or any option at all (see WEG Star Wars and everything White Wolf did back in the day for good examples of this).
In the case I was looking at, the genuine non-random option would give you only mediocre characters compared to the random.
Greetings!
I generally prefer 4d6 drop the lowest, down the line for character stats. This usually results in relatively competent characters that can effectively fulfill any Character Class. The added advantage is that uber Characters are actually pretty unusual, and thus rightfully prized. It also establishes as mentioned an effective norm, while also characters having some inferior stat ability are also, while not a constant, are also reasonably common.
This also has a knock-on effect in the long term, as Characters can look forward through level increases or magic towards obtaining one or more stat abilities in the range of 16 to 18. This kind of "ceiling" also reinforces a dynamic where Characters may be Heroic--but not Super Heroes.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2025, 08:30:36 AMGreetings!
I generally prefer 4d6 drop the lowest, down the line for character stats. This usually results in relatively competent characters that can effectively fulfill any Character Class. The added advantage is that uber Characters are actually pretty unusual, and thus rightfully prized. It also establishes as mentioned an effective norm, while also characters having some inferior stat ability are also, while not a constant, are also reasonably common.
This also has a knock-on effect in the long term, as Characters can look forward through level increases or magic towards obtaining one or more stat abilities in the range of 16 to 18. This kind of "ceiling" also reinforces a dynamic where Characters may be Heroic--but not Super Heroes.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
For clarity, this isn't about the merits of random chargen, or the specifics of how to apply it.
Rather, games which direct you first to come up with a character concept, then take you through highly random stat/career generation, which can then make said concept irrelevant.
Quote from: Kiero on April 28, 2025, 09:22:59 AMQuote from: SHARK on April 28, 2025, 08:30:36 AMGreetings!
I generally prefer 4d6 drop the lowest, down the line for character stats. This usually results in relatively competent characters that can effectively fulfill any Character Class. The added advantage is that uber Characters are actually pretty unusual, and thus rightfully prized. It also establishes as mentioned an effective norm, while also characters having some inferior stat ability are also, while not a constant, are also reasonably common.
This also has a knock-on effect in the long term, as Characters can look forward through level increases or magic towards obtaining one or more stat abilities in the range of 16 to 18. This kind of "ceiling" also reinforces a dynamic where Characters may be Heroic--but not Super Heroes.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
For clarity, this isn't about the merits of random chargen, or the specifics of how to apply it.
Rather, games which direct you first to come up with a character concept, then take you through highly random stat/career generation, which can then make said concept irrelevant.
Greetings!
Right. Thank you, Kiero. Games that front-load the Character Concept before rolling for stat abilities seems to be stupid to me. The subsequent stat abilities generated may establish a Character that isn't just a bit straying from the ideal, but stupidly different and incompatible. That, then, makes whatever the preconceived Character Concept a pointless waste of time and energy.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2025, 09:47:16 AMGreetings!
Right. Thank you, Kiero. Games that front-load the Character Concept before rolling for stat abilities seems to be stupid to me. The subsequent stat abilities generated may establish a Character that isn't just a bit straying from the ideal, but stupidly different and incompatible. That, then, makes whatever the preconceived Character Concept a pointless waste of time and energy.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The game that prompted me to post this thread tells you to come up with a concept. Then does random stats. Followed by random origin/social class. Followed by random prior career.
All three of those will generate a completely different concept to whatever you dreamt up with at the start.
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2025, 08:30:36 AM...This usually results in relatively competent characters that can effectively fulfill any Character Class.
I've always thought having Class minimums were silly, better to just allow them to be non-optimal at their chosen class.
I came up with this option about the time the Unearthed Arcana Barbarian dropped. Stupid class.
We fixed this by playing games that let you assign your stats and abilities. You build your character. There are no random rolls during character creation.
Tiny D6, Dungeons & Delvers Dice Pool, Star Wars D6/Mini-Six Bare Bones, Pocket Fantasy, Kogarashi/True D6, or even Bugbears & Borderlands.
Mini-Six, Pocket Fantasy, and Bugbears & Borderlands are all free as well.
Quote from: Ruprecht on April 28, 2025, 09:23:41 PMQuote from: SHARK on April 28, 2025, 08:30:36 AM...This usually results in relatively competent characters that can effectively fulfill any Character Class.
I've always thought having Class minimums were silly, better to just allow them to be non-optimal at their chosen class.
I came up with this option about the time the Unearthed Arcana Barbarian dropped. Stupid class.
Greetings!
Yeah, Ruprecht!
That's right! I like how the 4d6 drop lowest typically creates a few 10's, a few 12's, and a few 14's, 15's, or 16's, which, when you think about Class Prime Requisites, well, it means you can basically be whatever class you want. No need to have prime minimums, which I also have done away with. Even if you had 12's and 14's across the board, while not optimal, I think you are good to go for whatever.
Also, think about it. 9-12 are the Human average. That means 13 to say, 16, are the band width for very skilled professionals. 17 and 18 are like, Olympic-level achievements, and extremely rare. Obviously, less so for 17, and more so for 18's. Which I happen to think is just fine as a solid arrangement of ability scores. People with 6's, 7's, and 8's yes are likely laughed at by most people, while people with 16's, 17's, and 18's are the show-stoppers. The in between scores are the normal people, and then the professionals and badasses. *Laughing*
I tend to view most Adventurers as more or less normal or somewhat above average people, with capacity to become someone exceptional, professional, and heroic.
Coincidentally, it is also an offshoot of why I also like the Class and Level approach. Most of the average and retarded adventurers--while still able to become adventurers--are likely to die and be eaten or retire by 5th level. This means that most of the people rocking at 6th level and higher--well, you can bet good money they are exceptional in every way, and likely extremely dangerous people. By 6th level and above, these people are absolute professionals, lucky, very experienced, and shrewd, cunning, and ruthless.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I don't understand why people are still playing with rolling for attributes. This just baffles me.
The core problem that I rarely see in these discussions (and this thread thusfar is no exception) is that dice are dice, and if you roll for your stats you are going to give certain PCs better total stats than others, either because they simply rolled higher in their attribute rolls or because the numbers they did roll matched a min-max-munchkinable class well.
This is rarely an issue, but even 5% of campaigns being notably weakened by it is still too much; it has zero reason to exist when you have a standard array, and you are going to have enough intra-party balance problems, anyway, without the dice's help. This is a case where the traditional grognard gameplay is more or less objectively wrong, but because this wrongness only gets expressed occasionally (because dice), people tend to limp along with it or Rule 0 awkward outcomes rather than actually address the root issue.
And this isn't to even start discussing whether or not the attached character creation system is fast. Rolling for attributes itself doesn't take much time, but the character creation systems attached to a system which lets you do it rarely are.
Random non-optimal stats are fun! My wife's Aslan character in our Traveller campaign started with a low dexterity due to wounds during chargen. She spent almost a year grinding to raise Dex. It was awesome and a noteworthy part of that character's development.
My character has low charm. It works great since I'm not good at the style of roleplay they want us to use. It's also hilarious since now my character has "adult supervision" when needed.
Play GURPS dude
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2025, 09:49:32 PMAlso, think about it. 9-12 are the Human average. That means 13 to say, 16, are the band width for very skilled professionals. 17 and 18 are like, Olympic-level achievements, and extremely rare. Obviously, less so for 17, and more so for 18's. Which I happen to think is just fine as a solid arrangement of ability scores.
If we presume that normal people are straight 3d6, then on average any group of 36 people (i.e. a big class or similar) will have one person with an 18 score in something. A group of 216 people will have a person with 18 in any given stat.
That's not all that rare. A small college with 2000 students will on average have 9 students with 18 Intelligence, for example.
One can interpret 18s as more rare, but then you have to abandon the idea that normal people have a straight 3d6 distribution.
Quote from: jhkim on Today at 12:32:43 PMQuote from: SHARK on April 28, 2025, 09:49:32 PMAlso, think about it. 9-12 are the Human average. That means 13 to say, 16, are the band width for very skilled professionals. 17 and 18 are like, Olympic-level achievements, and extremely rare. Obviously, less so for 17, and more so for 18's. Which I happen to think is just fine as a solid arrangement of ability scores.
If we presume that normal people are straight 3d6, then on average any group of 36 people (i.e. a big class or similar) will have one person with an 18 score in something. A group of 216 people will have a person with 18 in any given stat.
That's not all that rare. A small college with 2000 students will on average have 9 students with 18 Intelligence, for example.
One can interpret 18s as more rare, but then you have to abandon the idea that normal people have a straight 3d6 distribution.
The same odds also produce a large block of people with scores of 3 in those attributes. These people are as far below the norm as the Olympic atheletes are above it. That too is unrealistic.
Quote from: HappyDaze on Today at 12:46:45 PMQuote from: jhkim on Today at 12:32:43 PMQuote from: SHARK on April 28, 2025, 09:49:32 PMAlso, think about it. 9-12 are the Human average. That means 13 to say, 16, are the band width for very skilled professionals. 17 and 18 are like, Olympic-level achievements, and extremely rare. Obviously, less so for 17, and more so for 18's. Which I happen to think is just fine as a solid arrangement of ability scores.
If we presume that normal people are straight 3d6, then on average any group of 36 people (i.e. a big class or similar) will have one person with an 18 score in something. A group of 216 people will have a person with 18 in any given stat.
That's not all that rare. A small college with 2000 students will on average have 9 students with 18 Intelligence, for example.
One can interpret 18s as more rare, but then you have to abandon the idea that normal people have a straight 3d6 distribution.
The same odds also produce a large block of people with scores of 3 in those attributes. These people are as far below the norm as the Olympic atheletes are above it. That too is unrealistic.
Well, disabilities are far more common than Olympic-potential athletes. Disabled people are often less visible - for example by being separated from non-disabled students in schools - but there are a lot of them. But I agree with the general point.
There's all sorts of realism issues with attributes. A big one with old D&D attribute scores is that they are considered inborn and unchangeable except by magic. Originally, 18 was considered human maximum. Obviously, strength changes a lot with diet and exercise.
In general, RPGs tend to underestimate human variation in attributes as well as in skills.
Quote from: Spooky on Today at 09:04:53 AMPlay GURPS dude
Unfortunately, I was reading a licensed system. And as above, my issue wasn't simply that it was random, but that the instructions, to come up with the type of character you want to play
first, (knowing there's a shit-load of random stuff immediately after) was stupid.
Quote from: Kiero on Today at 01:48:58 PMl
Unfortunately, I was reading a licensed system. And as above, my issue wasn't simply that it was random, but that the instructions, to come up with the type of character you want to play first, (knowing there's a shit-load of random stuff immediately after) was stupid.
That game rulebook is hardly the first badly written game to be sold in the market.
Remember, I played Palladium Books growing up, and we liked it too.